BS24E3 
»."RI2 


uaNia  laiHdwvT 


THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH 

A  SERMON 

PREACHED  IN  NEW  YORK  AVENUE 
PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH 


BY 


WALLACE  RADCLIFFE,  DD.,  LLD.,  PASTOR 


December  17,  1916 


PUBLISHED  BY  REQUEST 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


"He  that  is  mighty  hath  done  to  us 
great  things." — Luke  1:49, 


The  song  of  Mary  echoes  through  the  anthems  of  the  centu- 
ries. That  Babe  of  Bethlehem  reveals  to  us  the  great  things 
done  for  humanity.  He  is  the  most  illustrious  personality 
among  men.  He  is  the  Messiah  of  prophesy — the  Christ  of 
history;  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  tell  us 
that  the  story  is  but  a  pleasant  myth,  but  a  useful  legend,  but  a 
graceful  and  gracious  sentiment,  but  an  impressive  fable  for  the 
nursery.  We  need  the  larger  and  satisfying  interpretation  both 
of  His  life  and  birth,  as  well  as  of  His  death.  His  life  is  an 
efficient  and  magnificent  fact,  but  if,  coming  into  that  life,  His 
birth  was  but  the  birth  of  common  humanity;  if  on  that  night  at 
Bethlehem  only  a  man  was  born,  then  He  is  on  an  equality  with 
all  other  humanity.  Born  as  others,  He  is  a  teacher  as  others, 
and  though  born  with  special  aptitude  to  religion,  yet  after  all 
His  teaching  is  only  a  philosophy — a  good  human  guess  at 
the  puzzle  of  the  universe — a  Socrates,  a  Plato,  an  Emerson, 
speaking  great,  grand  thoughts  for  us  and  for  the  race.  But 
more  than  this  must  be  if  there  be  in  His  presence  disclosure  and 
authoritative  revelation  of  actual  and  authoritative  truth. 

As  Christians  we  must  know  whom  we  follow.  Are  we 
disciples  of  a  child  of  shame?  Are  we,  and  the  hundreds  of 
thousands  with  us,  obedient  only  to  a  man — true  and  strong 
indeed,  but  only  a  man — or  do  we  in  reality  listen  to  and  follow 
the  Son  of  Man  who  is  a  Son  of  God — in  His  birth,  in  His  life,  in 
His  death,  in  His  resurrection  and  ascension,  a  supernatural 
revelation  in  human  flesh? 

i .  The  Narrative. — Studying  His  ancestry  we  turn  of  necessity 
to  the  Scriptures.  Here  are  the  steps  and  sign-posts  toward  the 
great  event.  We  begin  at  Eden  and  read  the  promise  announced 
so  distinctly  to  "the  seed  of  the  woman."  By  the  woman  had 
come  sin;  by  the  woman  must  come  redemption;  and  it  seems 

i 


no  accident,  but  a  peculiar  emphasis  that  is  placed  right  in  the 
beginning  of  things,  in  that  the  promised  one  is  to  be  the  child 
of  the  woman  distinctively,  and  so  far  as  the  narrative  is  con- 
cerned, exclusively.  We  move  down  through  the  prophesies 
and  we  read  that  wonderful  word  in  Isaiah  where  the  virgin 
birth  of  Immanuel  is  so  distinctly  and  unmistakably  announced 
— unrecognized,  indeed,  by  the  Jews,  and  unaccepted  of  them 
because  unrecognized  and  apparently  unknown,  but  carrying  in 
itself  distinctly  and  emphatically  the  directive  idea  toward 
Him  who  is  to  be  Immanuel — the  God  who  is  the  divine-human 
Person.  That  is  what  the  word  means — a  divine-human  person 
is  to  be  thus  born  in  the  coming  centuries.  We  move  down 
through  the  times  of  Jeremiah  and  Micah  and  listen  to  certain 
vague,  indistinct,  and  yet  no  less  suggestive  prophesies  of  a 
strange  child  to  be  born  with  a  nameless  one  for  mother  and  of 
whose  father  there  is  no  mention,  and  of  a  new  thing  on  the 
earth,  a  woman  who  hath  encompassed  a  man — Micah  5:2,3  and 
Jeremiah  31:  22 — until  we  emerge  into  the  Gospels  with  their 
positive,  direct,  and  unmistakable  record.  In  these  the  first 
significance  is  in  the  genealogies.  These  we  are  often  disposed 
to  waive  aside  as  useless.  We  do  not  read  them;  we  do  not 
bother  about  them,  and  even  wonder  sometimes  why  the  book  is 
so  lumbered  up.  Yet,  for  the  honest  student,  very  necessary 
and  illuminating.  Through  the  whole  course  of  Old  Testament 
teaching  was  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  more  and  more  distinct  and 
illuminated  and  illuminating.  The  Messiah  of  the  Hebrews  was 
to  be  in  the  character  of  Christ  the  anointed  one.  The 
Messiah  meant  the  Christ.  Step  by  step  the  church  moved 
toward  its  realization.  Line  by  line  the  countenance  was 
painted.  Note  by  note  that  majestic  anthem  was  sung  through 
those  Old  Testament  prophesies  until  we  come  to  this  New 
Testament  history  that  so  strikingly  confirms  and  illustrates — 
The  Messiah.  We  must  be  sure  of  Him ;  we  must  know  that  He 
is  the  Christ,  and  so  we  find  the  promise  first  with  Eve,  then 
with  Abraham  with  whom  and  his  children  the  covenant  was 
made.  There  were  many  children  and  so  we  have  the  indication 
that  this  Messiah  was  to  come,  not  only  of  Eve,  and  of  Abraham, 
but  of  Isaac;  there  were  many  children  of  Isaac,  and  so  we  have 
distinctively  the  information  that  it  was  of  his  child  Jacob,  and 


from  him  successively  to  David.  There  were  many  children; 
many  conditions ;  many  opportunities  for  mistake  or  perversions 
or  wrong  and  misleading  expectations  and  claims.  So  we  have 
distinctly  and  unmistakably  the  genealogy  traced  from  Eve, 
Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  David,  on  to  the  very  end,  until  the 
prophesied  Forerunner  speaks  and  the  babe  Christ  is  born  in 
Bethlehem.  The  genealogies  are  there  that  you  and  I  may  not 
mistake  the  ancestry;  that  we  may  know  who  this  Messiah  is; 
that  we  may  have  our  finger  upon  the  very  word,  our  eye  upon 
the  very  personality  who  is  to  bring  to  humanity  the  Gospel  of 
his  redemption.  We  may  trace  back  the  genealogy  of  the  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  from  Bethlehem  to  the  Garden  of  Eden,  through 
Joseph  to  David,  to  Abraham,  to  God,  and  through  Mary  to 
David,  to  Abraham,  to  God,  a  complete  genealogy,  on  the  side 
of  Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary,  and  on  the  side  of  Mary  the 
child  of  David,  that  there  may  be  no  mistake,  no  clouding  of 
title,  no  misapprehension.  The  Scriptures  give  us  the  family 
tree  that  we  may  recognize  the  veritable  Messiah,  the  identical 
Christ  who  is  to  be  the  Saviour  of  Man.  Men  sometimes  call 
our  attention  to  supposed  mistakes  where  we  have  in  one  case 
"Joseph  the  son  of  Jacob"  and  in  another  case  "Joseph,  the  son 
of  Heli."  Very  easily  explained,  the  statements  are  consistent. 
"Joseph,  the  son  of  Jacob,"  is  Joseph,  the  son-in-law  of  Heli. 
The  narration  of  the  Gospels  is  by  two  very  distinct  and 
unquestioned  authorities,  Matthew  and  Luke.  We  have  the 
story  of  the  birth  from  the  viewpoint  of  Joseph,  in  the  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew,  and  the  story  from  the  viewpoint  of 
Mary,  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke.  In  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  Matthew  you  have  Joseph's  perplexity,  and  the  assur- 
ance of  the  angel,  which  brought  Joseph  back  from  his  perplex- 
ity to  peace.  And  then  you  have  in  Luke,  from  the  viewpoint 
of  Mary,  the  annunciationof  the  angel — Mary's  perplexity  and 
modesty — and  at  last  her  cheerful  and  sweet  submission. 
There  we  have  clearly  and  unmistakably  the  story  of  the 
virgin  birth  of  Christ,  familiar  to  all.  It  is  fair  to  say  that  there 
is  one  record — the  Sinaitic  Syrian — that  does  bear  the  expression 
"son  of  Joseph"  but  now  that  is  laid  aside  and  unregarded.  It 
is  not  the  version  accepted  by  the  Church  of  Christ ;  it  has  been 
examined  and  found  defective  and  contradictory;  it  appears 

3 


that  in  this  very  same  manuscript  in  which  He  is  spoken  of  as 
the  son  of  Joseph,  Mary  is  spoken  of  as  the  virgin,  and  the  birth 
spoken  of  as  the  virgin  birth.  A  single  testimony  unsupported 
and  contradictory  can  not  be  set  over  against  the  testimony  of 
Matthew,  Luke,  Mary,  Joseph,  and  Jesus  himself,  whose 
testimony  the  church  accepts  as  records  of  the  Word  of  God. 
These  are  integral  parts  of  Scripture — these  critical  manu- 
scripts have  been  made  exact,  there  are  no  marks  of  interpola- 
tion ;  to  dissect,  and  choose,  and  reject  any  part  is  to  impair  the 
harmony,  consistency,  and  completeness  of  the  whole  record. 
These  writers  were  not  poets;  their  records  are  not  myths  nor 
nursery  rhymes.  These  men  were  sober  and  honest  authors. 
It  is  too  late  to  waive  aside  the  evangelists  as  story  tellers  or 
fanatics.  Their  records  are  authentic  manuscripts.  They  claim 
to  narrate  an  historical  incident,  written,  not  distant  years 
after  the  event  and  in  post-apostolic  times  but  by  apostolic 
writers — men  of  the  day — who  had  access  to  the  inner  circle  of 
the  Holy  Family,  and  who  gave  as  was  delivered  by  those  who 
from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses.  Matthew  and  Luke 
stand  with  Mark  and  John  as  equally  evangelists,  inspired  of 
God,  to  communicate  to  humanity  this  record.  The  silence  of 
Mark  and  John  is  not  rightly  an  obstacle  to  faith.  Their 
Gospels  have  different  purposes.  Mark  begins  his  Gospel  with 
the  public  ministry  of  Jesus.  John  introduces  his  Gosepl  with 
the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  and  then  he  also  begins  with  the 
public  life  of  Christ.  Of  course,  they  do  not  mention  the  birth, 
but  that  fact  certainly  does  not  argue  that  they  did  not  believe 
it.  With  such  logic  we  might  just  as  well  argue  that  they  did 
not  believe  He  had  been  born  at  all,  for  neither  of  them  men- 
tions the  fact  of  His  birth.  There  is  this  significant  thing  to 
remember,  that  one  of  the  authors,  Luke,  would  be  justly 
expected  to  be  the  depository  of  the  great  secret.  It  was  not  a 
public  thing ;  it  was  a  secret  thing.  It  was  not  a  matter  for  the 
public  to  talk  about  and  to  be  projected  into  their  controversies ; 
it  was  a  matter  of  privacy.  Luke  was  a  physician — the  natural 
confidante  in  the  secrets  and  intimacies  of  the  Holy  Family, — 
and  it  is  natural  and  to  be  expected  that  if  the  record  appear  at 
all,  it  would  be  through  him  who  was  thus  in  intimate  pro- 
fessional relationships  and  to  whom  this  was  not  so  much  a 

4 


wonder  as  a  mysterious  reality.  The  silences  are  rather 
confirmatory. 

We  are  told  that  not  only  are  these  two  Gospels — Mark  and 
John — silent,  but  that  there  is  such  silence  throughout  the 
following  New  Testament.  Well,  how  often  would  you  have  it 
mentioned?  Must  we  believe  a  thing  only  after  it  has  been 
repeated  and  re-repeated?  Must  we  wait  and  wait  and  wait 
again  until  the  story  is  told  over  and  over  and  over  again,  no 
matter  what  may  be  the  fact  presented,  nor  how  demanding  the 
authority  of  the  witness.  Once  is  enough  when  the  Word  of 
God  speaks. 

Especially  is  the  silence  of  Paul  an  ineffectual  argument. 
This  birth  was  not  in  the  scheme  of  his  work.  He  did  not  deal 
with  the  details  of  the  life  of  Christ.  His  great  thought  was  the 
Person — the  Cross — the  Resurrection  of  Christ;  to  the  elabora- 
tion and  emphasis  of  these  great  facts  he  gave  himself,  and  the 
very  fact  that  he  does  not  mention  the  birth,  instead  of  con- 
tradicting seems  to  confirm  it.  Luke  and  Paul  were  com- 
panions. It  is  altogether  likely — it  is  absolutely  certain,  I 
should  think — that  with  such  a  profound  fact  in  his  possession, 
the  intimacies  of  their  companionship  would  compel  the  narra- 
tion by  Luke  to  Paul,  and  we  can  read  his  epistles,  seeing  in  the 
background  the  belief,  not  in  the  incarnation  only,  but  in  the 
virgin  birth  of  Christ  and  have  sympathy  with  the  old  fathers 
who  believed  that  Paul  directed  Luke  to  the  writing  of  his 
Gospel,  as  Peter  directed  Mark  to  the  writing  of  his.  The  silence 
of  the  Scriptures,  far  from  suggesting  our  unbelief,  rather 
confirms  the  conviction  that  it  was  accepted  by  them  as  a  fact, 
and  having  another  scheme  and  another  phase  of  the  divine 
commission  to  present,  they  wrote  upon  the  basis  of  that  record 
and  spoke  their  individual  message.  And  certainly  this 
historic  fact  has  been  accepted.  The  church  through  all  the 
intervening  years — for  nineteen  hundred  years — has  lived  its 
life  of  faith  in  the  virgin  birth  of  Christ.  There  have  been,  here 
and  there,  contradictions.  A  few  Christians,  coming  into 
discipleship  from  the  Greeks,  denied  it ;  a  few,  a  very  few,  of  the 
Jewish  Christians  antagonized  it.  And  now  again  in  the 
progress  of  the  years  it  is  in  debate;  but  the  great  mass  of  the 
Christian  church  has  accepted  the  historic  announcement  of 

5 


V 


Matthew  and  Luke,  as  a  veritable  fact,  and  all  creeds  and 
confessions  narrate  it,  from  the  Apostles'  Creed  to  the  most 
elaborate  confessions;  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  proclaims  to 
the  world  and  to  God  with  its  mighty  and  overwhelming  voice 
"I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary." 

The  testimony  is  a  testimony  of  scholarship,  of  accepted  and 
tried  integrity,  of  accumulated  and  commanding  numbers  which 
confirm  and  reiterates  the  large,  tremendous,  unimpeachable 
belief  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

2.  Its  Reasonableness. — Some  questions  are  raised  whose 
consideration  is  not  worth  while.  There  are  indecent  sugges- 
tions, sinful,  vulgar,  blasphemous,  that  are  not  to  be  heard 
except  with  indignation  and  scorn.  But  there  are  honest 
doubters  who  insist  that  of  course  it  is  impossible.  Well,  that 
depends.  If  you  do  not  believe  in  miracles,  of  course  to  you 
it  is  impossible.  If  you  do  not  believe  in  anything  but  natural 
law,  of  course  to  you  the  virgin  birth  is  not  a  possibility.  If 
everything  must  be  measured  by  the  exactness  of  human  reason 
and  human  law,  then  of  course  we  may  dismiss  this  historic 
incident  as  fable.  But  Christianity  is  supernatural  and  if  we 
dismiss  the  miracle  we  dismiss  Christianity,  and  we  waive 
aside  records  that  are  authentic,  confirmed  in  their  integrity, 
and  which  confirm  to  us  the  history  of  a  miracle.  If  there  is  to 
be  in  your  idea  of  the  birth  nothing  but  naturalism,  of  course 
this  record  is  not  to  be  accepted.  But  we  believe  in  the  miracle. 
We  believe  that  the  common  birth  is  very  largely  a  miracle,  and 
certainly  in  the  matter  of  the  new  birth  of  the  spirit,  we  not  only 
believe  and  welcome  but  we  accept  as  necessary  the  direct 
interposition  of  God.  A  sinless  man  is  as  much  a  miracle  in  the 
moral  world  as  a  virgin  birth  is  in  the  physical  world.  Chris- 
tianity is  necessarily  supernatural.  Incarnation  of  the  pre- 
existent  Son  implies  a  miracle  in  human  origin.  And  this 
miracle  must  of  necessity  have  a  physical  as  well  as  spiritual 
side. 

And  this  is  not,  as  many  suppose,  a  miracle,  or  a  supernatural 
act,  above  others.  I  can  believe  as  readily  in  this  as  I  believe  in 
the  resurrection.  You  believe  in  the  resurrection.  You  believe 
in  regeneration,  which  is  a  miracle  of  the  Holy  Spirit — and  in 

6 


sanctification.  And  the  whole  experience,  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  the  spiritual  life,  is  a  miracle  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
And  through  His  whole  life,  Christ's  life  was  glorified,  made 
splendid  and  impressive  by  interpositions  with  intrusions  upon 
the  law  of  nature.  His  great  incidents — His  death,  His  resur- 
rection, His  ascension,  are  no  less  miracles  than  this  birth  of  the 
Christ  child  at  Bethlehem. 

I  am  not  bothered,  and  the  Christian  man  is  not  to  be 
bothered,  with  the  fact  that  we  are  confronting  a  miracle.  Of 
course  it  is  a  miracle,  and  if  we  are  not  to  accept  the  possibility 
of  the  supernatural,  we  are  in  the  very  act  of  belittling  our 
religion,  we  virtually  reject  the  basic  fact  and  influence  in 
Christianity  and  repudiate  His  Gospel  of  redemption.  All 
miracles  are  equally  easy  to  Omnipotence.  The  Virgin  Birth  is 
not  a  unique  exception.  The  fact  is  not  as  unscientific  and 
impossible  as  we  are  sometimes  told.  Huxley  himself  tells  us 
that  the  very  incident  essentially  is  an  every-day  occurrence  in 
modern  biology. 

We  are  told  that  it  is  unhistoric,  and  are  pointed  to  heathen 
legends  and  myths  and  asked  to  believe  that  the  whole  story  has 
its  origin  either  from  Egyptian  or  Pagan  suggestion.  They  tell 
us,  for  instance,  that  the  idea  existed  in  Babylon,  and  that  our 
story  is  but  a  projection  into  Christianity  of  an  old  Babylonian 
myth — the  very  same  men  forgetting  that  in  the  early  part  of 
their  argument  they  were  trying  to  teach  us  that  this  story 
of  the  virgin  birth  was  not  known  by  the  apostles  or  by  the  early 
church  but  was  a  subsequent  growth  of  the  years  of  the  Christian 
era.  They  had  better  fix  up  their  tenses  before  they  begin  to 
talk.  Certainly  it  is  not  of  Jewish  growth,  for  the  Jews  them- 
selves failed  to  see  their  Messiah  in  the  prophesied  Immanuel 
who  was  to  be  born  in  Bethlehem  of  the  virgin.  And  certainly 
it  could  not  have  been  transmitted  from  those  who  had  no  faith, 
and  no  mention  of  such  a  miracle.  I  fail  to  see  the  analogies 
claimed  in  Pagan  mythology.  And  we  are  taught  sometimes 
that  it  is  an  invention  read  back  into  the  record — in  these  days 
particularly  of  destructive  criticism.  We  are  told  with  great 
elaboration  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is  the  first  of  the  Gospels, 
and  that  Matthew  and  Luke  borrowed  from  Mark,  and  that 
Mark  himself  wrote  his  Gospel  partly  of  personal  knowledge. 

7 


There  are  things  on  which  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  agree; 
there  are  matters  on  which  two  of  them  agree;  there  are  matters 
of  which  Mark  only  knows — or  that  there  were  pre-existent 
sources,  hypothetical  manuscripts  called  "Logia"  and  "U- 
Mark,"  and  "Q"  from  which  he  borrowed.  We  get  very 
elaborate  in  our  scholarship  when  we  undertake  to  destroy  the 
Bible,  you  know.  Mark  was  using  these,  and  out  of  all  these,  in 
building  up  his  Gospel,  he  never  found  or  mentioned  the 
virgin  birth,  but  Matthew  and  Luke  simply  appropriated  from 
him  their  historic  narratives  and  then,  out  of  the  superstition 
on  the  part  of  some,  out  of  the  pious  wish  on  the  part  of  others, 
out  of  an  ignorant  puzzle  on  the  part  of  others — intruded  the 
virgin  birth  into  their  Gospel.  That  story  needs  only  to  be  told, 
to  be  disregarded. 

We  are  told  again  that  it  is  unnecessary;  that  we  build  up  a 
great  piece  of  history  here  that  is  not  needful  for  the  mission  of 
Christ;  that  He  was  the  child  of  Mary  and  of  Joseph,  to  whom 
there  came  the  large  endowment  of  an  indwelling  of  the  spirit  of 
God  by  which  He  became  thus  the  Almighty  teacher  of  the 
Gospel  of  salvation.  Such  a  theory  forgets  one  or  two  things. 
It  forgets,  first,  that  any  such  inflowing  of  the  spirit  of  God  can 
not  produce  a  sinless  man.  The  child  of  Adam,  by  ordinary 
generation,  generation  after  generation,  shares  in  the  fall  in  the 
sinful  nature.  It  is  not  possible  for  the  stream  to  rise  higher 
than  its  fountain,  that  it  shall  not  carry  with  itself  the  qualities 
of  that  fountain.  As  one  of  Adam's  race  He  would  have  shared 
in  Adam's  sin  and  doom.  If  Christ  is  the  son  of  a  man  and  a 
woman,  then  of  necessity  He  is  only  a  son  of  man  and  He 
carries  in  Himself  the  faults,  the  weaknesses,  something  of  the 
sin  of  that  humanity,  and  needs  for  Himself,  somewhere,  a 
redemption.  With  all  reverence  be  it  spoken,  God  himself  can 
not  create  a  divine  being,  and  it  is  not  possible  by  any  endow- 
ment of  the  spirit  by  any  large  and  overwhelming  benediction 
of  the  spirit  of  God,  for  any  man  to  be  made  divine — human. 
But  bear  in  mind  the  name — Immanuel — whose  very  meaning  is 
literally,  the  divine-human  Person. 

And  not  only  so,  but  that  philosophy  forgets  that  other  fact — 
in  that  inn  at  Bethlehem  was  not  the  beginning  of  Christ.  His 
birth  was  not  His  origin,  His  beginning  was  not  in  that  human 


birth.  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word.  The  Word  already 
existed — what  happens  is  a  pre-existent  personality  being 
introduced  into  a  new  order  of  being — that  is  all  there  is — 
there  is  not  here  the  creation  of  a  personality ;  there  is  the  intro- 
duction of  this  pre-existent  person  coming  out  of  that  larger 
society  in  which  He  has  been,  into  this  other  condition  of  our 
earthly  human  life.  So  somehow  or  other  there  must  be  a 
power  of  almightiness  which  shall  produce  the  form  in  which  this 
personality  may  exist  for  that  earthly  mission. 

This  controversy  is  not  merely  academic,  not  merely  a 
formula  for  scholastic  dispute.  It  is  not  a  question  of  a  few 
isolated  Scripture  texts.  It  is  the  test,  not  of  scholarship,  but 
of  principle.  It  is  an  essential  article  of  the  Christian  faith; 
it  is  an  essential  fact;  and  carries  in  itself  an  essential  doctrine; 
it  has  been  accepted  as  history  from  authentic  records;  it  has 
been  held  for  more  than  1,900  years  in  the  hearts  of  the  disciples 
and  written  into  the  creeds  and  confessions  of  the  church  of 
Christ.  If  this  doctrine  is  false  the  whole  Christian  faith  breaks 
down.  If  true,  the  whole  story  of  Jesus  is  unassailable.  It 
carries  in  itself  essential  truth  and  essential  life  for  you  and  me ; 
to  remove  it  is  to  remove  one  of  the  very  foundation  stones  of 
the  religion  of  Christ. 

If  you  deny  this  virgin  birth,  you  affect  the  faithfulness  of  the 
word  of  God.  That  is  the  first  thing  to  bear  in  mind.  It  is 
here  written,  and  it  is  bound  up  with  the  whole  history  and 
mission  of  Jesus  Christ. 

We  can  not  accept  here  and  there  some  statement  that  pleases 
us,  some  doctrine  that  commends  itself,  some  biography  that 
teaches  or  charms,  and  then  throw  aside  all  the  rest  of  the  word 
of  God.  He  that  adds  and  he  that  takes  from,  have  the  pro- 
nouncement of  an  eternal  curse.  It  is  part  of  the  word  of  God 
not  only,  but  it  is  particularly  essential  to  the  authenticity  of  the 
life  and  mission  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  Old  Testament  picture, 
the  face  of  the  Messiah  is  constantly  emerging  through  word  and 
type  and  prophesy  defining  more  clearly  the  face  of  Christ.  In 
the  New  Testament  picture  are  His  personality  and  work  still 
more  defined  and  transfigured.  That  Word  means  nothing  to 
you  and  me  unless  it  brings  to  us  the  authoritative,  authentic, 
and  effective  life  of  Christ.     The  one  gives  us  the  prophetic 

9 


/ 


Messiah,  the  other  the  historic  Jesus,  for  our  honor,  belief,  and 
hope.  When  I  cut  out  of  Luke  and  out  of  Matthew  this  record 
of  the  virgin  birth,  when  I  cut  out  of  Isaiah,  the  promise  of 
Immanuel,  and  when  I  go  back  to  Eden  and  silence  the  promise 
that  the  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent, 
I  am  dishonoring  the  word  of  God ;  I  am  assailing  His  revelation ; 
I  am  seeking  to  add  to  or  take  from  that  word  to  which  He  has 
given  the  final  commendation  and  message. 

But  this  doctrine  yields  to  us  not  only  His  message  but  His 
person.  It  conserves  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 
Christ  was  promised  to  us  as  the  divine-human  Person.  He 
comes  to  us  as  Immanuel,  as  the  man  who  bears  in  Himself  all 
divine  perfections,  all  human  attributes.  He  is  to  us  the  divine 
side  of  man,  as  He  is  also  the  human  side  of  God.  He  is  bearing 
to  us  this  wondrous  personality  by  which  we  are  to  know  God, 
by  which,  among  us,  God,  the  divine-human  person,  may  dwell 
with  us.  This  is  impossible  if  His  parentage  is  only  of  one 
kind,  or  if  He  is  only  empowered  or  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
That  way  lies  Unitarianism.  You  could  not  have  such  a  person- 
ality if  He  was  the  human  son  of  a  human  father  and  a  human 
mother.  There  must  be  somewhere  the  miracle  that  shall 
produce  the  Incarnate,  that  shall  to  this  humanity  give,  not 
appearances,  not  visions,  not  occasional  words,  not  intermittent 
experiences,  but  transfiguration.  In  this  humanity  must  abide 
the  presence  and  power  of  God. 

That  is  the  reason  why  the  church  of  Christ  to-day  emphasizes 
this  doctrine.  There  is  a  quiet  result  of  indifference  and  ease 
that  is  encouraging  in  the  common  conviction  a  scepticism  and 
doubt — a  relaxing  sense  of  God  in  Christ,  which  is  often  in- 
sensibly but  no  less  certainly  a  movement  toward  the  seculariz- 
ing of  the  Bible  and  the  undeifying  of  Christ. 

Men  who  are  antagonizing  the  supernatural  birth  of  Christ, 
are  minimizing  His  diety.  It  is  an  attack  that  will  take  many 
jewels  from  the  crown  of  Christ.  It  will  by  and  by,  but  very 
surely,  bring  us  to  the  announcement  of  a  creed  which  will 
eliminate  the  incarnate  God  and  in  place  of  Immanuel  will  exalt 
only  The  Perfect  Man. 

This  doctrine  of  the  virgin  Birth  also  holds  necessarily  the 
truth  of  the  sinlessness  of  Christ.   Because  His  human  nature  has 

10 


miraculous  origin  it  therefore  is  sinless.  How  can  we  explain 
otherwise  the  Holy  One  of  God?  It  belongs  to  man  to  sin. 
Every  man  is  a  sinner.  But  Christ  comes  as  the  second  Adam, 
introducing  in  Himself  a  new  creation  of  our  humanity,  and  there 
must  be  in  that  true  body  and  reasonable  soul  no  guilt  nor  stain 
of  sin ;  He  must  be  to  us  the  Holy  One  of  God.  He  can  come  only 
as  the  son  of  God;  and  thus  He  proclaims  Himself.  He  never 
speaks  of  Himself  as  the  son  of  Joseph.  He  never  speaks  of 
Himself  as  a  son  of  man.  He  never  confesses  Himself  the  son 
of  Mary.  His  birth  is  not  the  origin  of  His  personality,  and  its 
entrance  into  the  conditions  of  our  human  life,  whilst  recognizing 
Mary  as  His  mother  and  revealing  in  Himself  the  attributes  of 
His  humanity,  everywhere  and  at  all  times  He  proclaims  Him- 
self the  Son  of  God.  Bear  in  mind  always  the  wording  of  your 
creed.  It  is  not  only  that  He  is  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  but 
"conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost";  that  the  Holy  Spirit  comes  not 
with  external  power,  but  with  the  internal  power — the  indwell- 
ing power  of  God.  His  nature  and  mission  required  a  special 
miracle  differing  from  the  common  endowment  of  the  Spirit. 

And  over  against  the  idea  that  Christ  is  without  paternity — 
this  is  the  large  and  true  thing,  that  He  has  on  the  side  of 
humanity,  Mary,  the  mother — but  He  is  the  Son  of  God. 
Mary  was  His  mother  and  God  was  His  father.  So  we  have 
divinity  and  humanity  with  the  child  Christ,  presented  to  the 
race.  Everywhere  He  is  called  the  Son  of  God.  Everywhere 
He  proclaimed,  not  Joseph,  but  God  as  His  father.  Everywhere 
He  emphasized  the  divine  fatherhood.  Everywhere  He  claims 
to  come  from  the  Father;  to  go  to  the  Father.  So  there  is  not 
only  the  divinity  but  the  sonship  of  Jesus  Christ  that  carries  in 
itself  a  large  and  comforting  and  inspiring  idea  of  His  friendship 
for  redeemed  humanity,  so  that  we  say,  one  to  another,  "Not 
only  are  we  the  children  of  the  Highest — now  are  we  the  sons  of 
God." 

This  doctrine  impressively  and  essentially  holds  the  doctrine 
of  His  salvation.  Bear  in  mind  the  emphasis  of  the  truth.  Cer- 
tainly we  are  not  as  we  are  often  told,  "merely  splitting  hairs." 
We  are  not  having  a  scholastic  dispute,  we  are  advocating  truth 
for  Christian  redemption.  When  we  hold  to  this  doctrine  we  are 
holding  first  to  the  faithfulness  of  the  word  of  God;  second,  to 

ii 


His  personaltiy — the  divine-human;  third,  to  his  sinlessness, 
and  fourth,  to  His  salvation.  He  is  the  Saviour.  He  is  the 
Messiah,  and  the  Messiah  through  all  the  years  is  revealed  as  one 
who  was  to  be  born  of  a  virgin.  He  is  the  Christ,  and  the  Christ 
was  thus  born  of  a  virgin.  He  is  the  Saviour  and  the  Saviour  of 
the  world  was  to  be  thus  born  of  a  virgin.  Everywhere, 
through  our  Scripture,  that  great  fact  is  presented,  and  if  it 
be  not  true  that  Christ  was  thus  born;  if  it  be  not  true  as 
Matthew  and  Luke  narrate,  no  matter  what  our  experience  is, 
what  our  doubts,  what  our  logic;  if  it  be  not  true  that  this  Christ, 
prophesied  throughout  all  the  years,  carried  to  us  through  this 
magnificent  ancestry,  was  born  in  Bethlehem,  of  Mary,  the 
betrothed  of  Joseph — then  humanity  is  hopeless;  there  is  no 
Gospel  to  teach;  there  is  no  Messiah  to  be  revealed;  there  is  no 
Christ  to  preach ;  there  is  no  word  to  utter — of  love  and  redemp- 
tion, of  God  and  Salvation.  But  over  against  all  doubt  and 
scepticism  we  come  to  this  manger-cradle  and  we  find  Immanuel. 
In  this  son  of  Mary  we  read  the  promise  of  the  Messiah ;  in  this 
helpless  Babe  we  feel  the  very  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
in  this  Child  of  the  Virgin  we  hail  the  Son  of  Redemption. 


12 


DATE  DUE 

^"^ffnitm^tm 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.  S    A. 

BS2423.1.R12 

The  virgin  birth;  a  sermon  preached  in 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


